Category: IFS

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Poll results!

Poll Results: What Are You Looking For?

I recently ran a poll to find out what kits and components you’re most interested in. Unsurprisingly, the clear winner was the “Fridge Trucks” — the 1957–1960 Ford F100s. That’s where my focus will be over the next four weeks.

If you’re one of the many who voted for it, you’re in luck—development is already underway.

Ranking of the poll
Ranking of the poll from 03/16/2025 through 03/23/2025

What’s Next: Fabricated Arms and Airbags

Tube control arms are still on the table, but I’m also working on a fabricated version. These would potentially reduce cost and be better suited for airbag setups. I have quite a bit of design work to finish before they’re ready.

 

What I need from those of you interested, is suggestions on how you intend on using these. Stock applications? That is a possibility for you Dakota guys. Do you want to stick with stock rubber bushings, go fully Poly bushings? How about something trick like spherical bearings?

Studebaker IFS Kits and What’s Coming Next

Over the years, I’ve built a handful of Studebaker IFS kits. While they worked well and had their fans, they were never big sellers—on average, I moved fewer than six kits a year. On top of that, the fixtures I had built for them were damaged during my move back in early 2020.

That means if I want to bring them back, I’d have to start from scratch—completely rebuilding the fixturing and investing the time and materials to make them viable again. Based on current costs, I estimate each kit would land at around $1250, plus crating and freight for shipping.

A Community-Supported Build?

Here’s the deal:
If 10 committed people are truly interested, I’m willing to do the work. I’d need a $750 deposit from each person to fund the fixture rebuild and the first production run. Once your kit is built and ready to ship, the balance would be due.

If that sounds like something you’d be on board with, reach out. If I can gather 10 real commitments, I’ll greenlight the project.

New Name, Same Mission

As many of you know, I’m in the middle of a rebrand. The new parent company will be called KofA Kustom.
I’ll still be using Industrial Chassis as the label for my branded suspension parts, but KofA Kustom will represent the broader business and future of what I’m building here.

Thanks for sticking with me, and thanks for voting—it’s genuinely helpful as I plan what’s next.

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Dodge Guys! Front Brake Upgrade Information!






Caliper Bracket Compatibility Chart



Caliper Bracket Compatibility Chart




✔
Make Model Year
CHRYSLER 300 1971
CHRYSLER NEW YORKER 1972-1973
DODGE B100 1973-1980
DODGE D150 PICKUP 1977-1981
DODGE RAMCHARGER 1985-1993


If your spindle looks like this, there is a good chance this bracket will allow you to use the Wilwood D52 two piston slider caliper on your stock rotor. Centric, StopTECH and R1 Concepts are both making slotted and coated rotors for a nice visual and actual performance upgrade.

The one I am unsure of is the D100 with the 5 on 4.5″ bolt circle. The inner bearing is smaller indicating the spindle may be different.

Printable PDF CLICK HERE

The update here is that the 1980-1984 Dodge D150 rotor for the 3300 lb. front axle is the small pattern rotor has the 63mm inner bore on the rotor so it does fit the spindles with the 1.49″ bearing register. Everything else is the same as the 3600 lb. axle with the 5 on 5.5″ rotor. Beware of what inner bearing and race are used on your application, as there is a difference in the small pattern rotors. The National A17 shows a 1.3772 (34.981mm) inner bore on the bearing and a 2.3622 (60mm) outer, which is smaller than the National A18 bearing that rings in at 1.4961 (30mm) on the inner bore and 2.4803 (63mm) on the outer. Both carry the same A18 bearing. If you are unsure of what spindle you have, grab a measuring caliper and check that inner bearing register on your spindle with these inner bore dimensions. And please refer to this drawing for your caliper mounting dimensions.

It is possible that these brackets will work on the D100 spindle, but it is unlikely that the small pattern D100 rotor will fit the Dakota or D150 spindles, because of this diameter difference.
I would love to be proven wrong on this!  And now I was proven wrong, we are good to go!

Part image

 

The Dakota and D150/B150/B1500 use the same bearings and grease seals.

National A18 inner bearing with 38mm ID and 63mm OD. And all the spindles use the same A16 outer bearing with the 21.999mm ID and 45.974 OD.

 

Below are likely to be able to use these caliper brackets.

If you need further assistance, send me an email at info@industrialchassisinc.com or text to ‪(480) 535-7774‬ to learn how to purchase a pair.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Next video up, Rust removal click bait!

And some metal shaping too!

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Stagnation: The condition of being stagnant; the cessation of flow

I need to post an update about the state of the product lines.

The arrangement with my employer has been difficult when it comes to production, pricing and shipments. I am exploring my options because you guys have been wanting more product that the current situation cannot fulfil.

I have been in contact with a few interested parties in a licensing agreement to produce the kits and parts again.

If you are in need of parts, please contact me at steve@industrialchassisinc.com

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Do work son!

Yeah, things are progressing. The move is moving forward. It’s looking like about six weeks or so of this posting that we will be back.

The web-store will be back when we are able to produce. There may be a delay in between when you order and when we ship, but no more than a week as we sort the production and shipping in the new location.

This has been one of the wildest journeys so far. The potential here is going to be next level for the entire team.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Issue found with Heidt’s Mustang II stock spindles

We had a customer complain about one of our Studebaker clips not capable of an alignment recently. With all the shims removed from the adjusting plate, there was still negative camber.

I had to investigate further, and on a chassis we are supplying right now we had the same issue come up. This is brand new for us, so I needed to investigate. This is what I came up with. The upper ball joint bore is moved outboard about 1/2″.

This is causing a few problems, First off is the Camber issue. Second is going to be an issue of scrub radius. This may not cause any driveability issues, but you may notice a bit more wheel kickback on uneven road surfaces.

Short solution is to use a longer control arm, in some cases where the stock slot and T-bolt are used, you may not have much of an alignment issue.

EDIT:

I spoke with a representative from Heidt’s this afternoon. Of course this issue has never come up with them. He informed me they use a 1/4″ longer control arm at 8″ from pivot to ball joint. No reason given as to why. I want to caution everyone that if you are to mix-match parts, you may end up with a front end that you can’t align.

We have used the Heidt’s and CPP dropped spindles without this problem. I have used the stock height spindles from SPC and Kaiser without issue.

 

I want to go further with you as to what these changes will make to the way your front end will drive and handle in a future date. Right now I just needed to get this information out there.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

New feature coming soon

 

One of the reasons for doing the redesign is for you the customer to navigate and find products easier.

The other is to add in a new forum that will go live in the next few days (I hope) where you and I can engage in a more technical sense.  I get asked to help people sort their suspension issues on all sorts of vehicles.

I am working to put together a searchable forum where we can get in-depth with the true geometry of what makes your IFS work and why. This will  be a subscription service, Sorry folks but more and more of my time is being taken up by answering questions. For those of you who are customers, you will get access to the forums, but for those of you on the fence, the fee will be minimal. In that forthcoming forum, we can get in-depth to get your ride working the way you want it to.

 

Eventually, I would like to expand the forum to be an offsite, 3rd party tech line for any aftermarket hot rod parts manufacturer. If you would like to participate in some way, PDF files of instruction sheets of kits you have installed would be helpful in growing to that goal.

As always, I appreciate some input.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Ball Joint talk

What I wanted to discuss is regarding the screw in MOPAR style ball joint that is very popular with the tubular control arms for the venerable Mustang II suspension.

These two ball joints are very different in how they are supposed to be used

The ball joint pictured at the right is the commonly used K772 MOPAR screw in ball joint used on tubular control arms throughout the industry. If you look up that number you will see it is meant for MOPAR Upper Mid-Sized cars. It is not intended for use as a lower ball joint where it will see tension loads.

The ball joint on the Left is a K719. It has the same threaded body of the K772 but if you notice one very different difference in that body, it encloses much more of the ball stud. This is a true lower ball joint meant for the Mid-Size and larger passenger cars. While it will directly replace your K772 ball joint in the control arm, the stem is larger. This larger stem requires you to machine your spindle to accept it.

While many thousands of cars and trucks are on the road using the K772 as a lower ball joint without failure, we have seen a few. Granted, this is a very robust ball joint, and if you are using a quality joint like the MOOG Problem Solver line, you may never experience a failure. We have, on the other-hand, solved some driveability issues associated with the Mustang II suspension, mainly the nervousness out on the highway but replacing the ball joints with a true lower ball joint. Now don’t take this as the end all-cure all solution to your Mustang II suspension, it’s just something we have experienced. Because the K772 is not meant to be loaded in tension, it can be “sticky” and not let your steering wheel return to center properly.

All of our Mustang II based control arms feature the K719 on the lower, and we machine the spindles to fit. If this seems like an upgrade you would like to make, give us a call and we can take care of you.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

More new product in the store

Recently added are dropped spindles, engine mounts and a few other goodies.

Like this, a bolt-in transmission crossmember for stock Model A frames. Allows you to use ’35 up style transmission mounts and a 48-52 Ford F1 brake and clutch pedal set.